IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v27y2013i7p2611-2622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Mekong Game: Achieving an All-win Situation

Author

Listed:
  • Zhenliang Liao
  • Phillip Hannam

Abstract

In recent years, there have been many quarrels among countries of the Mekong River Basin surrounding use of the water resources of that river. In particular, China’s behavior of constructing dams upstream has resulted in objections by many people in all countries downstream. Cooperative game theory has been applied to solving issues of building and utilizing dams on trans-border rivers. The central question is how to allocate the surplus benefits generated by the dams. This paper proposes to achieve an all-win situation in use of Mekong water resources through cooperation. A game named “The Mekong Game” was designed for those Ph.D. students and resource persons to play on the PROSPER.NET’s workshop in 2010. For a hypothetical case in Mekong Game, the Shapley Value Method’s results were given, which could be regarded as one of equitable results in theory, and the Mekong Game’s process and outcomes are introduced in this paper. Participants were divided into six groups representing the six involved “countries.” The process of meeting an agreement with an all-win idea was simulated through three round-table negotiations. For the hypothetical case, different set of results under different situations were compared and discussed, including no dam(s), dam(s) without cooperation, dam(s) with cooperation but without compensation and re-allocation, Shapley Value Method, and Mekong Game (bargaining and negotiation). The results reveal: although it is hard to get theoretical optimal aftermath considering other complicated factors than those can be calculated, the all-win situation is still possible through bargaining and negotiation processes, which should be much better than all-lose situation such as the current one. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Zhenliang Liao & Phillip Hannam, 2013. "The Mekong Game: Achieving an All-win Situation," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(7), pages 2611-2622, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:27:y:2013:i:7:p:2611-2622
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-013-0306-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11269-013-0306-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-013-0306-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tobias Harks & Konstantin Miller, 2011. "The Worst-Case Efficiency of Cost Sharing Methods in Resource Allocation Games," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1491-1503, December.
    2. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    3. Madani, Kaveh & Dinar, Ariel, 2012. "Non-cooperative institutions for sustainable common pool resource management: Application to groundwater," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 34-45.
    4. Ariel Dinar & Shlomi Dinar & Stephen McCaffrey & Daene McKinney, 2007. "Bridges Over Water:Understanding Transboundary Water Conflict, Negotiation and Cooperation," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 6184, February.
    5. Crawford, Vincent P., 2002. "John Nash and the analysis of strategic behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 377-382, May.
    6. Mojtaba Sadegh & Reza Kerachian, 2011. "Water Resources Allocation Using Solution Concepts of Fuzzy Cooperative Games: Fuzzy Least Core and Fuzzy Weak Least Core," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(10), pages 2543-2573, August.
    7. Suman Sensarma & Norio Okada, 2010. "Redefining the Game in Local Water Management Conflict: A Case Study," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(15), pages 4307-4316, December.
    8. Mehmet Kucukmehmetoglu, 2009. "A Game Theoretic Approach to Assess the Impacts of Major Investments on Transboundary Water Resources: The Case of the Euphrates and Tigris," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(15), pages 3069-3099, December.
    9. Augusto Getirana & Valéria Malta & José Azevedo, 2008. "Decision Process in a Water Use Conflict in Brazil," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(1), pages 103-118, January.
    10. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    11. Sumaila, Ussif Rashid & Dinar, Ariel & Albiac, Jose, 2009. "Game theoretic applications to environmental and natural resource problems," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 1-5, February.
    12. Parrachino, Irene & Dinar, Ariel & Patrone, Fioravante, 2006. "Cooperative game theory and its application to natural, environmental, and water resource issues : 3. application to water resources," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4074, The World Bank.
    13. R. Maria Saleth & John B. Braden & J. Wayland Eheart, 1991. "Bargaining Rules for a Thin Spot Water Market," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(3), pages 326-339.
    14. Kaveh Madani & Keith Hipel, 2011. "Non-Cooperative Stability Definitions for Strategic Analysis of Generic Water Resources Conflicts," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(8), pages 1949-1977, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seemanta Bhagabati & Akiyuki Kawasaki & Mukand Babel & Peter Rogers & Sarawut Ninsawat, 2014. "A Cooperative Game Analysis of Transboundary Hydropower Development in the Lower Mekong: Case of the 3S Sub-basins," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(11), pages 3417-3437, September.
    2. Mead Allison & Michael Ramirez & Ehab Meselhe, 2014. "Diversion of Mississippi River Water Downstream of New Orleans, Louisiana, USA to Maximize Sediment Capture and Ameliorate Coastal Land Loss," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(12), pages 4113-4126, September.
    3. Mehmet Kucukmehmetoglu & Abdurrahman Geymen, 2014. "Transboundary Water Resources Allocation under Various Parametric Conditions: The Case of the Euphrates & Tigris River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(11), pages 3515-3538, September.
    4. Parna Parsapour-Moghaddam & Armaghan Abed-Elmdoust & Reza Kerachian, 2015. "A Heuristic Evolutionary Game Theoretic Methodology for Conjunctive Use of Surface and Groundwater Resources," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(11), pages 3905-3918, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kaveh Madani & Keith Hipel, 2011. "Non-Cooperative Stability Definitions for Strategic Analysis of Generic Water Resources Conflicts," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(8), pages 1949-1977, June.
    2. Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He & Liang Yuan & An Min & Qi Zhang, 2018. "Bankruptcy to Surplus: Sharing Transboundary River Basin’s Water under Scarcity," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(8), pages 2735-2751, June.
    3. Mehmet Kucukmehmetoglu & Abdurrahman Geymen, 2014. "Transboundary Water Resources Allocation under Various Parametric Conditions: The Case of the Euphrates & Tigris River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(11), pages 3515-3538, September.
    4. Ley, Eduardo, 2006. "Statistical inference as a bargaining game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 142-149, October.
    5. Ben Li & Guangming Tan & Gang Chen, 2016. "Generalized Uncooperative Planar Game Theory Model for Water Distribution in Transboundary Rivers," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(1), pages 225-241, January.
    6. Dijkstra, Bouwe R. & Nentjes, Andries, 2020. "Pareto-Efficient Solutions for Shared Public Good Provision: Nash Bargaining versus Exchange-Matching-Lindahl," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    7. Dagmawi Mulugeta Degefu & Weijun He & Liang Yuan, 2017. "Monotonic Bargaining Solution for Allocating Critically Scarce Transboundary Water," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(9), pages 2627-2644, July.
    8. Ben Li & Guangming Tan & Gang Chen, 2016. "Generalized Uncooperative Planar Game Theory Model for Water Distribution in Transboundary Rivers," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(1), pages 225-241, January.
    9. Seemanta Bhagabati & Akiyuki Kawasaki & Mukand Babel & Peter Rogers & Sarawut Ninsawat, 2014. "A Cooperative Game Analysis of Transboundary Hydropower Development in the Lower Mekong: Case of the 3S Sub-basins," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(11), pages 3417-3437, September.
    10. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    11. Dinar, Ariel, 1989. "Application of the Nash Bargaining Model to a Problem of Efficient Resources Use and Cost-Benefit Allocation," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270685, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    13. Volodymyr Babich & Simone Marinesi & Gerry Tsoukalas, 2021. "Does Crowdfunding Benefit Entrepreneurs and Venture Capital Investors?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 508-524, March.
    14. Yu, Shasha & Lei, Ming & Deng, Honghui, 2023. "Evaluation to fixed-sum-outputs DMUs by non-oriented equilibrium efficient frontier DEA approach with Nash bargaining-based selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. repec:eee:labchp:v:2:y:1986:i:c:p:1039-1089 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Yashiv, Eran, 2007. "Labor search and matching in macroeconomics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(8), pages 1859-1895, November.
    17. Güth, Werner, 1998. "Sequential versus independent commitment: An indirect evolutionary analysis of bargaining rules," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1998,5, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    18. Iraklis Kollias & John Leventides & Vassilios G. Papavassiliou, 2024. "On the solution of games with arbitrary payoffs: An application to an over‐the‐counter financial market," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 1877-1895, April.
    19. van Damme, E.E.C., 2000. "John Nash and the analysis of rational behavior," Other publications TiSEM cf34a879-fd1c-4588-9646-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    21. Lili Liu & Guochun Tang & Baoqiang Fan & Xingpeng Wang, 2015. "Two-person cooperative games on scheduling problems in outpatient pharmacy dispensing process," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 938-948, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:27:y:2013:i:7:p:2611-2622. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.